Diablo 3 - Why Fallout 1 Could be succesfull Today @ Pixelitis

June 27th, 2012, 22:53

Originally Posted by Nameless one
Gothic 3 and Risen don't go beyond they outer looks?That statement is just untrue.Both game have detailed, complex and realistic worlds filled with interesting characters and multiple choices and their consequences.

Too bad I can't remember not one interesting character in Gothic 3. They were sparse in Risen, too.

Well I can't speak for Gothic 3, because I didn't like it and stopped playing pretty early. But when it comes to Gothic 1,2, and Risen, I'd say that the depth was in the game world, and not in the characters or the game mechanics. There was just a lot of detail, and a lot of things to explore. But the actual game mechanics and characters were pretty basic, even by modern standards. So it just depended on what you were looking for in a game.

Originally Posted by Hindukönig
Too bad I can't remember not one interesting character in Gothic 3. They were sparse in Risen, too.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that Diablo 3 is not an RPG. It's an action game, with probably more in common with Tower Defense browser games, etc., than RPGs. There is no role playing aspect to the game at all.

A RPG like Fallout has a huge amount of dialogue, quests, backstory in all the locations, etc. Personally, I don't see why anyone cares about reviving the isometric view, but it's completely irrelevant.

It would either require a massive budget to cover the cost of recording dialogue, or it would have mostly text based dialogue, in which case it would only reach a very small niche audience.

Originally Posted by fadedc
Well I can't speak for Gothic 3, because I didn't like it and stopped playing pretty early. But when it comes to Gothic 1,2, and Risen, I'd say that the depth was in the game world, and not in the characters or the game mechanics. There was just a lot of detail, and a lot of things to explore. But the actual game mechanics and characters were pretty basic, even by modern standards. So it just depended on what you were looking for in a game.

I thought there was plenty of depth in Risen's melee system, and Gothic 1&2 had many memorable characters to me. Perhaps not "deep" in terms of dialogue, but most had enough personality to make them stand out compared to other action-RPGs.

Well, that's your opinion, but it's a fairly controversial claim, that many would disagree with. It is certainly not something that can be remotely stated as fact. Nobody has ever come up with an official definition for what is, or is not, a RPG.

But it would be much more accurate and reasonable to say that Diablo 3 is an extremely different type of RPG then Fallout 3, and that trying to compare the two is not helpfull. But even then, the article isnt talking about gameplay, just graphics.

Originally Posted by CountChocula
The problem with that line of reasoning is that Diablo 3 is not an RPG. It's an action game, with probably more in common with Tower Defense browser games, etc., than RPGs. There is no role playing aspect to the game at all.

Originally Posted by fadedc
Well, that's your opinion, but it's a fairly controversial claim, that many would disagree with. It is certainly not something that can be remotely stated as fact. Nobody has ever come up with an official definition for what is, or is not, a RPG.

But it would be much more accurate and reasonable to say that Diablo 3 is an extremely different type of RPG then Fallout 3, and that trying to compare the two is not helpfull. But even then, the article isnt talking about gameplay, just graphics.

Certainly, many have varying views about this, and I mean no disrespect to any fans of Diablo.

In my view, however, if there is no role playing, it is not a role playing game.

That's a very vague and circular statement as well though. There is no official definition for what counts as role playing in a game. Nobody has ever come up with one that didn't either exclude lots of classic RPGs, or include lots of games that nobody (even Diablo fans) would consider to be RPGs.

Originally Posted by CountChocula

In my view, however, if there is no role playing, it is not a role playing game.

Originally Posted by fadedc
That's a very vague and circular statement as well though. There is no official definition for what counts as role playing in a game. Nobody has ever come up with one that didn't either exclude lots of classic RPGs, or include lots of games that nobody (even Diablo fans) would consider to be RPGs.

I understand some may wish to categorize games in different ways; however, it's pretty clear whether we are playing a role in a game or not. There might be some grey areas, or games with limited role playing, etc., but there is absolutely no role playing in Diablo 3.

Are you playing the part of a character, making choices, doing and saying things you think that character would want to do?

Certainly no less then I was in classic games like Wizardry, Might and Magic, and Bard's Tale. There are no dialog choices or branching storylines, but that's true of many of the classic RPGs that define our genre. In fact many of them had no dialogue at all.

You are certainly playing the part of a character and making choices though. The choices are purely combat related, but again that's true in many classic RPGs.

Originally Posted by CountChocula

Are you playing the part of a character, making choices, doing and saying things you think that character would want to do?

Originally Posted by fadedc
That's a very vague and circular statement as well though. There is no official definition for what counts as role playing in a game. Nobody has ever come up with one that didn't either exclude lots of classic RPGs, or include lots of games that nobody (even Diablo fans) would consider to be RPGs.

The circularity is impossible to bypass. RPGs are well defined. Role playing games existed before studios attempted to translate them on computers. The usual question emerged: you can try to bring role playing to video games or use broadly the label to qualify some types of video games, no matter how loosely they connect to the definition of role playing games.

It has been a work in progress as for every other genres. Even studios that wanted to bring role playing to video games had to start small, with small ambitions when it comes to role playing.
Constraints to bring role playing to video games are heavy and require a high load of developpment.

The elaboration of role play in video games could not start at the same level as non computer roleplay games. It had to start at a small level and through evolution and experience, role playing was expected to be built more and more.

But for this genre, instead of increasing, the dose of role playing has been decreased, with many studios even giving up on translating role playing to video games.

That is for path one.

It is also clear that some other studios decided to label RPGs games that are not connected to the definition of rpg that existed before trying to translate role playing on computers. Many games labelled RPGs are actually tactical skirmish wargames, as it exists elsewhere like table top/board games (that are not called RPGs)
From that moment, games that are not RPGs were labelled and introduce in the RPG category.

That is for path two.

The circularity is impossible to bypass from that observation. Since games whose goal was not role playing were labelled RPGs, anyone sticking to the general (non computer games) definition will exclude them. So up with the classic games exclusion argument.
And since games whose goal was not role playing were labelled RPGs, anyone using the "computer definition" will introduce games whose aim is not role playing.

The last point also leads to exclude the possibility that other genres can evolve and introduce new elements to meet gameplay demands.

Many players do not refer to the general definition but instead to a list of means that can used to enable role playing. There is a confusion between means and ends.

For example, if a system of character customization is included, it is RPG. But role playing can happen without a system of progression.
Same for story. Role playing does not need a story to happen.

So when other genres are expanded their gameplay and introduces these means to support games, they are also automatically shifted to RPG category.

In the end, as so many so called RPG elements are only means to support an end that other genres demand, you'll end with most games being a RPG, even though whose main focus is not role playing. This indeed destroys the "computer definition" as it catches so many games.

Return to the general definition is probably impossible as my belief is that actually players would not like playing role playing games on computers. That recalled, anyone sticking to the general definition of role playing games (no reason not to apply to video games) do not end with Diablo series being RPGs.

Well you do have a back story, and you can make choices based on it if you want to. But as I said, most choices are making decisions about where to explore, what to fight, what techniques or magic to use, and of course what sword you want to equip. And really that's no different then many of the classic of old, as well as more modern, retro games like Grimrock or Underworld. In fact, you have many more options, and much more backstory, then many classic RPGs that defined the genre.

Originally Posted by CountChocula
Can you elaborate a bit more? Do you mean like the choice of whether to whack somebody with a +2 sword or a +3 sword?

Or are you actually playing the role of a character, by taking certain actions you think that character would choose to take, based on his or her backstory and personality?

You seem to be talking about pen and paper RPGs, but that's not really true either. Dungeons and Dragons started off as a tactical minis game. Today many people play home games with roleplaying elements, which may or may not be defined as RPGs. And even when it comes to traditional pen and paper RPGs, many play games that are just hack and slash, and which have no character interaction or story.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
The circularity is impossible to bypass. RPGs are well defined.

Originally Posted by CountChocula
In my view, however, if there is no role playing, it is not a role playing game.

Whilst I understand exactly where you are coming from, this is more a definition of a "good" RPG than something that clearly defines the genre of RPGs, including historically. Hack'n'slash action/RPGs offer "roleplaying" through the different character classes and the opportunity to develop and equip a "unique" character. This is not different in any meaningful way to classic RPGs like Bard's Tale etc as described. It's every bit as valid as, say, Grimrock.

They are are sub-genre, just as the "deeper" choice-and-consequence RPGs many of us love are also a sub-genre.

Originally Posted by fadedc
You seem to be talking about pen and paper RPGs, but that's not really true either. Dungeons and Dragons started off as a tactical minis game. Today many people play home games with roleplaying elements, which may or may not be defined as RPGs. And even when it comes to traditional pen and paper RPGs, many play games that are just hack and slash, and which have no character interaction or story.

I wrote about role playing games. There is a general definition of them. It encompasses P&P games as it encompasses I dunno role playing games used in firm trainings.

Role playing elements? I wont go again on that too much. But there is no ground to call them role playing elements as if their use was an exclusivity of role playing games.

Character customization is a means and can be used in a RPG like it can be used in a shooter or in a sport games.

Why call them RPG elements? There are gameplay elements that can be used to support a certain end. And wargames makes use of them before RPGs, which is somehow expected as RPGs were developped through wargame experience. So why not call them wargame elements?

You are walking on path 2, which through evolution of gaming, leads to qualify most of the games as RPGs.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
Whilst I understand exactly where you are coming from, this is more a definition of a "good" RPG than something that clearly defines the genre of RPGs, including historically. Hack'n'slash action/RPGs offer "roleplaying" through the different character classes and the opportunity to develop and equip a "unique" character. This is not different in any meaningful way to classic RPGs like Bard's Tale etc as described. It's every bit as valid as, say, Grimrock.

They are are sub-genre, just as the "deeper" choice-and-consequence RPGs many of us love are also a sub-genre.

By putting a word like roleplaying between " ", it tells all.

The genre RPG is defined. That the definition is not applied or respected is another story. That is one point not to bother with definitions. That is another to claim the definition does not exist.

There is no role in Diablo to be played. Roles are contextualized and roleplay is achieved by playing against an archetype, with the quality of roleplay being assessed through the deviation from the archetype.

Character customization leads to developp and equip a unique character, no matter the game genre this means is used.

There is no ground to make character customization an exclusivity to RPGs. Every other genres has the liberty to introduce it to support a gameplay end. On what ground a sportsgame should be denied character customization? And character customization does not make a sports game a RPG or featuring RPG elements.
In addition, role play can happen without a character customization system.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
Whilst I understand exactly where you are coming from, this is more a definition of a "good" RPG than something that clearly defines the genre of RPGs, including historically. Hack'n'slash action/RPGs offer "roleplaying" through the different character classes and the opportunity to develop and equip a "unique" character. This is not different in any meaningful way to classic RPGs like Bard's Tale etc as described. It's every bit as valid as, say, Grimrock.

They are are sub-genre, just as the "deeper" choice-and-consequence RPGs many of us love are also a sub-genre.

I'm one of those cranky old geezers who's been playing computer games and PnP RPGs since the early 80s. Absolutely, the first edition D&D evolved out of tabletop wargames with minis. However, those earlier wargames were not RPGs.

As for the earliest computer games influenced by D&D back in the 70s and 80s, it was more like, "Hey we have this machine that can calculate stuff, let's program in some THAC0 mechanics and attributes and you can fight some goblins in a dungeon and pretend you're playing an RPG."

The essence of a roleplaying game is not the math, but when your GM asks you that awesome question, "What do you want to do next?" and you use your imagination to consider your character, deciding what your character would want to do in a given situation.

A role playing game without role playing is like a strategy game with no strategy, a fighting game with no fighting, a shooter with no shooting, a puzzler with no puzzles, a racing game with no racing, etc…(I think you see where I'm going with this )

'RPG' is just a label to define what shelf retailers put the game on back in the day. That is, at most a market segment definition by which you could say that gamers interested in one RPG might also be interested in another. It doesn't have to be terribly accurate.

If you were interested in Fallout 1 back in the day, you might also be interested in Diablo 3 today. For me, that's spot on. Without such market segment definitions I would never have discovered a number of games, Lands of Lore being the most prominent in my mind.

As opposed to if you were interested in Fallout 1 back in the day you might also be interested in rFactor.. doesn't work as a genre does it?